Michael Moore: Let’s face it, ObamaCare is awful

posted at 2:31 pm on January 2, 2014 by Allahpundit

I was just thinking yesterday, “I wonder what a guy who supports CastroCare thinks we should do to fix ObamaCare?” If you can’t guess, read this. If you can, why bother? His big knock on O-Care is true enough — “affordable” care ain’t so affordable — but you already knew that, just like you already know what he thinks should be done about it. The solution to gross mismanagement of the federal exchange, capricious deadline-shifting driven by political whim, and tens of trillions in unfunded Medicare liabilities is, obviously, a bigger role for government in health care. There’s no problem with liberalism that socialism can’t solve.

The piece itself is less interesting than the timing of it, appearing in the Times on day one for ObamaCare coverage. Moore’s not waiting around to see how the law works before pronouncing it sucky and calling for a public option and single-payer. He’s as eager for his own reasons to see it fail as righties are; the key question is how many leftists are with him. Go back and look at this Gallup poll from last month showing a 12-point spike between October and December in the number of Democrats who want to “expand” what the law does. My hunch is that that number’s ticked down now that the website’s kinda sorta working and two million people have kinda sorta enrolled, but I’d like to see it tracked monthly. Progressives will be torn this year between toeing the party line on how awesome O-Care is to improve their chances in the midterms and dismissing O-Care as a giveaway to corporate interests in the name of galvanizing a challenge to Hillary from the left. (In his piece, Moore takes care to applaud potential Clinton opponent Brian Schweitzer for opening a few state-funded clinics for state workers as governor of Montana.) You’ll see them oscillate between Moore’s position and OFA’s until November, I suspect, when they’ll finally start trending more durably towards the former ahead of 2016.

Exit question: How could anyone dislike ObamaCare? This vid makes it sound fantastic.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

The solution to gross mismanagement of the federal exchange, capricious deadline-shifting driven by political whim, and tens of trillions in unfunded Medicare liabilities is, obviously, a bigger role for government in health care. There’s no problem with liberalism that socialism can’t solve.

Words of advice from Dean Wormer directed towards Michael Moore…’Fat, Drunk, and Stupid is no way to go through life.’

anybody else try to engage a lib on the biggest lie of the year? not a one I’ve asked will even admit the whole deal was sold on a lie. Not sure how we’re supposed to function as a nation with one side thinking lying is a winning strategy.

My friend’s wife was literally yelling at the TV on Wednesday about Michael Bloomberg, during a story on the swearing in of Bill de Blasio as mayor. But she wasn’t yelling over Mayor Mike’s big-government nanny-statism, but over the idea that he’s just another one of those evil 1 percent billionaires who’s been holding the 99 percent down.

That’s the way they think, and that’s the same line of reasoning people like Moore or Paul Krugman have when they rail at the failures of big government by demanding even bigger government, because it just hasn’t been done right yet by the right (left) people. Moore’s entire identity is tied into believing state control over everything is the answer, so his solution to ObamaCare is naturally going to be that taking out the insurance companies and putting the government in charge of everything would solve the whole problem.

ol’ chucky boy simply preempted me by posting a logical question that any rational visitor of hotair would have

nonpartisan on January 2, 2014 at 3:21 PM

It’s the timing that’s embarrassing. It makes you look like a predictable tool (whether deserved or not).

That aside, it should be pointed out that this is noteworthy precisely because Michael Moore and the people on this site are usually extremely far apart on their opinions. That makes a “they’re saying the same thing” story interesting.

No one here is saying, “the conservative point is now strengthened because MM came to the same conclusion as us”. And, of course, no one here is under any delusions that MM came to that conclusion for all of the same reasons (we both seem to agree that the current implementation of ACA sucks, but, it’s unlikely he’d like to replace it with a more free-market solution).

I’m sure there are things I’ve missed, but, is there anything in here that’s unclear?

ol’ chucky boy simply preempted me by posting a logical question that any rational visitor of hotair would have

nonpartisan on January 2, 2014 at 3:21 PM

Really?

What manner of “listening to” do you think is taking place here?

You act like this is the first time HA ever quoted someone from left of center.

You probably also missed the part where the author cynically (and very likely, accurately) placed Moore’s criticisms of the current law in the context of “we should all have single payer, then everything would magically be fine”.

Or maybe you were just absent the day they taught irony in literature class.

Nothing will change in Washington until it’s recognized that the ultimate driving force behind most politicians is obtaining and holding power. And money from special interests drives the political process.

Money and power are important only because the government wields power NOT granted by the Constitution.

A limited, constitutional government would not tempt special interests to buy the politicians who wield power. The whole process feeds on itself. Everyone is rewarded by ignoring constitutional restraints, while expanding and complicating the entire bureaucratic state.

Nothing will change in Washington until it’s recognized that the ultimate driving force behind most politicians is obtaining and holding power. And money from special interests drives the political process.

Money and power are important only because the government wields power NOT granted by the Constitution.

A limited, constitutional government would not tempt special interests to buy the politicians who wield power. The whole process feeds on itself. Everyone is rewarded by ignoring constitutional restraints, while expanding and complicating the entire bureaucratic state.

roflmmfao

donabernathy on January 2, 2014 at 5:49 PM

We need one-term only term limits and psychological screening for all potential candidates.

You can’t buy a politician that isn’t running for re-election (well, you can, but that’s pretty much covered by bribery laws).

Far too many of our elected politicians are flat-out bat-$hit crazy. Worse, many of the ones who aren’t obviously crazy are power-seekers. Exactly the kind of people who should not be allowed anywhere near actual power.

And obviously, if the state can give rights, they can take them away. And never mind that distinction between the current crop of “rights” and the unalienable ones of yore — yammering about the latter is a shibboleth of teaist racism. Everyone knows government gives rights. That’s why you elect certain people — they give you new rights. They abridge others, but what of that? All this rights stuff is fungible, isn’t it? A woman can’t have full women’s rights if her unborn child has the right to life. A ward of the state can’t have an obamaphone if someone else retains an extra dollar instead of paying that tax on their phone bill. This stuff exists to spread around! It doesn’t matter what happens to individuals, as long as collectively the mountains are leveled and everyone is wading in the same bog. :-/

Chubs just found out his gastric bypass wasn’t covered under his new plan. He only gets OB care, neonatal ICU and chiropractic coverage, and not enough psyche hours under his affordable, shiny new 30K policy with a 10K deductible.